We have to stop rhapsodizing pseudo-”second order” thinking steeped in language idiosyncrasies. Yes, understanding things like IIFEs, scopes, and the like is very important, but expressing that demand through “quirk analysis” for both acceptance and shared understanding strikes me as non-optimal. Basically, these functional attributes are useful so long as they are leveraged as useful. Another way to say this is that analysis of a language feature’s uninuitive applications does not imply sufficient knowledge of its intuitive applications.

I might argue that I could come up with a more contextually semantic, straight-forward example that tests the exact some knowledge in addition to opening up the task for the use of language-specific feature knowledge.

Furthermore, is there solid evidence that those who cognize “This is a trick” then solve that trick are more creative thinkers and outperform those who cannot in a variety of key tasks? If so, I’ll shut up and retract my criticism.

Like what you read? Give Joey Di Nardo a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.